1) Under Problem #1, "Lower Cholesterol", they note that precisely one study (conducted exclusively with Japanese-American men aged 71-93 years) showed that low cholesterol was associated with higher mortality.

2) Under Problem #2, "Increased risk of colorectal cancer", they note that precisely one study showed higher risk for one specific cancer in vegetarians, even though many studies show that they have a much lower risk of cancer overall. They conclude by noting "The study's researchers, although not unequivocal in being able to explain the findings, theorize that the vegetarian participants were perhaps not eating sufficient amounts of fruits and vegetables." Really? Your study's vegetarians don't eat from those food groups much? Are they just really big on rice and pasta? Maybe you should study smarter vegetarians before yours die of scurvy or anemia or something.

3) Under Problem #3, "Lower bone mineral density", they cite precisely one study, then conclude by noting "The authors claim that the "magnitude of the association is clinically insignificant."

Problems #4 and #5 are more realistic (you have to choose your foods a little more carefully if you aren't getting these from meats), but again, they cite one study. These problems get mitigated if you're not a vegetarian for religious or cultural reasons, and still eat meat on occasion. We don't buy meat at the store, and try not to order it if we're out, but if we're at someone else's house or a business meeting, we don't expect the world to conform to our preferences. I do it for health/ecology reasons, so if I end up eating one serving of meat in a week, the impact is proportionally small.

Medical studies are all over the map. You don't want to make life changes based on any one result-- there can be quirks with the specifics of the study, with the interpretation, etc.

chimp_ninja:We don't buy meat at the store, and try not to order it if we're out, but if we're at someone else's house or a business meeting, we don't expect the world to conform to our preferences. I do it for health/ecology reasons, so if I end up eating one serving of meat in a week, the impact is proportionally small.

I have a lot of vegetarian hate, but have none of it for "vegetarians" like you.

1) Under Problem #1, "Lower Cholesterol", they note that precisely one study (conducted exclusively with Japanese-American men aged 71-93 years) showed that low cholesterol was associated with higher mortality.

2) Under Problem #2, "Increased risk of colorectal cancer", they note that precisely one study showed higher risk for one specific cancer in vegetarians, even though many studies show that they have a much lower risk of cancer overall. They conclude by noting "The study's researchers, although not unequivocal in being able to explain the findings, theorize that the vegetarian participants were perhaps not eating sufficient amounts of fruits and vegetables." Really? Your study's vegetarians don't eat from those food groups much? Are they just really big on rice and pasta? Maybe you should study smarter vegetarians before yours die of scurvy or anemia or something.

3) Under Problem #3, "Lower bone mineral density", they cite precisely one study, then conclude by noting "The authors claim that the "magnitude of the association is clinically insignificant."

Problems #4 and #5 are more realistic (you have to choose your foods a little more carefully if you aren't getting these from meats), but again, they cite one study. These problems get mitigated if you're not a vegetarian for religious or cultural reasons, and still eat meat on occasion. We don't buy meat at the store, and try not to order it if we're out, but if we're at someone else's house or a business meeting, we don't expect the world to conform to our preferences. I do it for health/ecology reasons, so if I end up eating one serving of meat in a week, the impact is proportionally small.

Medical studies are all over the map. You don't want to make life changes based on any one result-- there can be quirks with the specifics of the study, with the interpretation, etc.

chimp_ninja:We don't buy meat at the store, and try not to order it if we're out, but if we're at someone else's house or a business meeting, we don't expect the world to conform to our preferences. I do it for health/ecology reasons, so if I end up eating one serving of meat in a week, the impact is proportionally small.

That's basically how I am with beef. I miss it (meatloaf and cheesesteaks, actually) but I don't buy it. It is quite good when I end up being served it, most of the time. Beyond that my wife and I cook at least two vegetarian dinners per week (which leads to veggie lunches) and in general a well-below-average consumption of all meats.

I'll get tofu at Moe's, and just about any Asian restaurant that will sub it in, figuring that highly-flavored burritos and curries and whatnot don't benefit much from meat flavor. Boy do the other guys at my office think that is strange.

If you're going to go vegetarian, at least go ovo-lacto - don't exclude animal sources in their entirety. Vegans are, frankly, idiots. We evolved as opportunistic omnivores, and we're designed to include animal sources in our diets. There are things we need that we can only get from animal sources, unless we rely entirely on technology (and, even there, we're just adding an abstraction layer between us and the animal source we're still consuming.)

Vegetarians demonstrated a 39 percent higher incidence of colorectal cancer, which is confounding, given that eating red meat leads to higher colorectal cancer rates. The study's researchers, although not unequivocal in being able to explain the findings, theorize that the vegetarian participants were perhaps not eating sufficient amounts of fruits and vegetables.

Very scientific statement by the researchers. Our results contradict generally held beliefs so we'll just ignore that part of them and make up some BS excuse as to why they differ.

Older article about red meat cancer connection:Now a huge, 20-year study from the American Cancer Society confirms these findings. The bottom line: Those who eat the most red meat -- beef and/or pork and/or processed meat products -- get colon cancer 30% to 40% more often than those who eat these foods only once in a while.

So when one diet causes a 39% increase in cancer it's because the study population is unrepresentative and doesn't eat enough fruit and veggies and another diet increases risk 30-40% and it's because of the red meat.

Just maybe both groups have high incidences because of the lack of fruit and veggies?

One of the things we decided to try this year was to eat less meat in my house (more of a financial decision than a health one). 3 days a week, we go veggie (we used to eat meat at every meal). Nothing super healthy -- lots of veggie lasagnas, quesadillas and homemade cheese pizzas for dinner. Salads for lunch. I've lost 7 pounds (4%) and I poop better.

beefoe:So when one diet causes a 39% increase in cancer it's because the study population is unrepresentative and doesn't eat enough fruit and veggies and another diet increases risk 30-40% and it's because of the red meat.

Just maybe both groups have high incidences because of the lack of fruit and veggies?

The tons-of-meat vs. colorectal cancer link has been replicated by a number of studies. This is the first/only study Ive heard of linking vegetarian diets to colorectal issues.

Some of the benefits of fiber get overhyped, but there's some consensus that enough roughage to keep things "moving along" is a good thing for several reasons. Your body routes a lot of the toxic junk it doesn't know what to do with into the "poopin' process" (medical term), and it's reasonable to assume that there's no benefit and some possibility of harm in storing it there for longer than needed.

1) Under Problem #1, "Lower Cholesterol", they note that precisely one study (conducted exclusively with Japanese-American men aged 71-93 years) showed that low cholesterol was associated with higher mortality.

2) Under Problem #2, "Increased risk of colorectal cancer", they note that precisely one study showed higher risk for one specific cancer in vegetarians, even though many studies show that they have a much lower risk of cancer overall. They conclude by noting "The study's researchers, although not unequivocal in being able to explain the findings, theorize that the vegetarian participants were perhaps not eating sufficient amounts of fruits and vegetables." Really? Your study's vegetarians don't eat from those food groups much? Are they just really big on rice and pasta? Maybe you should study smarter vegetarians before yours die of scurvy or anemia or something.

3) Under Problem #3, "Lower bone mineral density", they cite precisely one study, then conclude by noting "The authors claim that the "magnitude of the association is clinically insignificant."

Problems #4 and #5 are more realistic (you have to choose your foods a little more carefully if you aren't getting these from meats), but again, they cite one study. These problems get mitigated if you're not a vegetarian for religious or cultural reasons, and still eat meat on occasion. We don't buy meat at the store, and try not to order it if we're out, but if we're at someone else's house or a business meeting, we don't expect the world to conform to our preferences. I do it for health/ecology reasons, so if I end up eating one serving of meat in a week, the impact is proportionally small.

Medical studies are all over the map. You don't want to make life changes based on any one result-- there can be quirks with the specifics of the study, with the interpretation, etc.

Yes, what you said. The author was reaching really hard to come up with something substantial and still found nothing.

A friend of mine recently came for a visit and she has in the last few years become practically vegan. She says her digestion lets her know if she eats something with, say, chicken broth hidden in it. She'll eat cheese because it's delicious but that gives her gas. She doesn't mind what we eat, but she's pretty militant about GMO and preservatives in her own food.

But, she smokes cigarettes. Kinda makes the rest of the health nut stuff hard to take seriously.

1) Under Problem #1, "Lower Cholesterol", they note that precisely one study (conducted exclusively with Japanese-American men aged 71-93 years) showed that low cholesterol was associated with higher mortality.

2) Under Problem #2, "Increased risk of colorectal cancer", they note that precisely one study showed higher risk for one specific cancer in vegetarians, even though many studies show that they have a much lower risk of cancer overall. They conclude by noting "The study's researchers, although not unequivocal in being able to explain the findings, theorize that the vegetarian participants were perhaps not eating sufficient amounts of fruits and vegetables." Really? Your study's vegetarians don't eat from those food groups much? Are they just really big on rice and pasta? Maybe you should study smarter vegetarians before yours die of scurvy or anemia or something.

3) Under Problem #3, "Lower bone mineral density", they cite precisely one study, then conclude by noting "The authors claim that the "magnitude of the association is clinically insignificant."

Problems #4 and #5 are more realistic (you have to choose your foods a little more carefully if you aren't getting these from meats), but again, they cite one study. These problems get mitigated if you're not a vegetarian for religious or cultural reasons, and still eat meat on occasion. We don't buy meat at the store, and try not to order it if we're out, but if we're at someone else's house or a business meeting, we don't expect the world to conform to our preferences. I do it for health/ecology reasons, so if I end up eating one serving of meat in a week, the impact is proportionally small.

Medical studies are all over the map. You don't want to make life changes based on any one result-- there can be quirks with the specifics of the study, with the interpretation, etc.

Yes, what you said. The author was reaching really hard to come up with something substan ...

Meh, I'm as willing to engage in some good natured shiat talking about people who make different dietary choices from me as the next Farker, but the author of that thread was making idiotic assumptions or confusing correlation and causation almost every other sentence, whether talking about us meat eaters or the veggers.

Things like Omega 3s can easily be obtained by vegetarians, they just have to be mindful. But that kinda comes with the "restricted diet" territory, though. I'm not surprised enough people execute it poorly enough to increase risks or have certain deficiencies, but that's not much different from any other group of people who don't pay attention to their diet. The specific consequences are just different.

chimp_ninja:Some of the benefits of fiber get overhyped, but there's some consensus that enough roughage to keep things "moving along" is a good thing for several reasons. Your body routes a lot of the toxic junk it doesn't know what to do with into the "poopin' process" (medical term), and it's reasonable to assume that there's no benefit and some possibility of harm in storing it there for longer than needed.

It does seem to make sense that way, doesn't it? A good salad or having carrots as a snack does wonders for me in that department.

Thank you for the articulate analysis. I hold very similar beliefs regarding animal consumption, and it's nice to see someone explain it so well before the brigade of "hurr derr bacon lol" crowd comes in.

Keigh:But, she smokes cigarettes. Kinda makes the rest of the health nut stuff hard to take seriously.

Hey, what's 1600 mrem/year of ionizing radiation dose to the lungs, plus the bleaching agents in ciggies going to do that can't be fixed with some gazpacho?

Honestly, I can definitely hang out with vegetarians, but people with serious dietary walls I just can't make myself identify with. No cheese, no broth, no chocolate, no veggies, no alcohol... for non-medical reasons that is... or an adult that is an extremely picky eater is too much for me to wrap my head around.

In all seriousness, I've been doing a lot of research and soul-searching to try to find the ideal diet (both nutritionally and ethically). I've come to the conclusion that the "best" diet in heavy on fruits and vegetables, but includes moderate amounts of animal protein.

Nutrition: Almost every qualified nutritionist/medical doctor that I've read recommends a diet heavy on fruits and vegetables (no big surprises). But they also recommend moderate amounts of fish (specifically wild salmon) and other animal protein (specifically organic, non-medicated, grass fed beef). Surprisingly, soy and soy products don't come highly recommended due to their high levels of haemagglutinin, goitrogens, and phytates (although I understand that this is somewhat controversial).

Ethics: I struggled with the ethics of requiring that other living beings die so that I can eat. However, I discovered that this issue is not nearly as black and white as some vegetarians/vegans would have you believe. The act of preparing a field (or berry patch, etc.), keeping the crops relatively safe, and harvesting them kills many animals (snakes, moles, mice, etc.). So no matter how you slice it (no pun intended), *something* had to die for your organic tofu. In addition, some of these vegan-friendly products need to be shipped great distances, requiring the burning of fossil fuels, etc.

Humans evolved as omnivores. If one if going to become a vegetarian, one must educate oneself to find out how to supplement those essential nutrients that we normally get from meat. It's a lot of work and there's a lot of information to digest. It should not be something that one does on a whim just because being a vegetarian is so hip just now.

Lots of vegetarians (myself included) are unhealthy because they are lazy vegetarians. Being a vegetarian means you have to pay particular attention to if you're getting enough proteins, vitamins, fats, and oils in your diet.

Things like nuts, seaweeds, beans, and leafy greens are all absolutely essential. Unfortunately, most of those things are either expensive or require a commitment to home cooking.

As more of a picky eater than a vegetarian at heart, I have a terrible, terrible diet.

factoryconnection:chimp_ninja: Some of the benefits of fiber get overhyped, but there's some consensus that enough roughage to keep things "moving along" is a good thing for several reasons. Your body routes a lot of the toxic junk it doesn't know what to do with into the "poopin' process" (medical term), and it's reasonable to assume that there's no benefit and some possibility of harm in storing it there for longer than needed.

It does seem to make sense that way, doesn't it? A good salad or having carrots as a snack does wonders for me in that department.

SOME of the benefits of fiber are overhyped, but it seems to be a lot like how proper hydration and proper exercise are overhyped. People are so chronically fiber deficient, that it's easy to put HUGE benefits on fiber because lots of people are so deficient they think their bodies ARE healthy, and try and blame other factors for their lack of health. Fiber and hydration are huge for how you feel and look, up to a reasonable level.

Scary? We're omnivores, our ancestors where omnivorous, our closest living relative, the Chimpanzee is an omnivorous (they form hunting parties to bring down larger animals), I would have used the obvious tag.

WhippingBoy:You know how some no vegetarians consider fish to be a vegetable? Well I'm a vegetarian that considers beef and pork and chicken to be vegetables.

Go veg!

/off to pick some bacon

FTFY

If you eat fish you are not vegetarian, you are pescetarian.

I'm vegetarian, and I really don't care what anyone else eats - I do, however, get annoyed at people who say they're vegetarian "except for fish". The fish have a better grasp of language than these people.